Supreme Court case information
Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing.
Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.
All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.
Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
David Owen Crequer v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 103/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s application to review the Deputy Registrar’s refusal to waive the filing fee for an appeal to the Court of Appeal.[2015] NZCA 365 CA 414/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
18 November 2015
18 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Case name
David Ingram Rowley v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 233 CA 572/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC ¶22-011).In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].
15 February 2016
___________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
15 February 2016
___________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2016 (PDF, 456 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 101 (PDF, 239 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7 [15 February 2016] (PDF, 155 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 33/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether or not the High Court erred in upholding the liquidation order made by the District Court.Civ 2013 409 1059
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 May 2014
2 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David John Young as director of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation) v Rhys James Cain and Bruce Donald Gemmell as liquidators of Splendide Structures Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 34/2014
Summary
[2014] NZHC 165 Civ 2013 409 1779
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 2 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
West City Construction Limited v Henry David Levin and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of St George Developments Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 43/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was no agreement to assign and/or equitable assignment of the bond monies – Whether the deed of assignment enabled the applicant to receive more towards the satisfaction of debt than it would receive or be likely to receive in the debtor’s liquidation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the sum payable under s 295 of the Companies Act 1993.[2014] NZCA 98 CA 101/2013
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Levin v West City Construction [2014] NZCA 98).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
Whether the assignment of the development bond is a voidable transaction under s 292 of the Companies Act 1993; and
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly exercised the discretion under s 295 of the Companies Act.
7 August 2014
_______________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of the Associate Judge in the High Court is restored.
B The liquidators are to pay the appellant costs and disbursements in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and costs in relation to the appeal to this Court in the sum of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
15 December 2014
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
Whether the assignment of the development bond is a voidable transaction under s 292 of the Companies Act 1993; and
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly exercised the discretion under s 295 of the Companies Act.
7 August 2014
_______________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of the Associate Judge in the High Court is restored.
B The liquidators are to pay the appellant costs and disbursements in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and costs in relation to the appeal to this Court in the sum of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
15 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 November 2014 (PDF, 462 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 183 (PDF, 192 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
John David Wright v The Queen
Case number
SC 46/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in principle – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly categorised the offending as within band three of Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39 – Whether the Court of Appeal paid insufficient regard to the sentencing hierarchy, the principles of sentence indication and other matters.[2014] NZCA 119 CA 831/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 July 2014
7 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN DAVID WRIGHT v R [2014] NZSC 87 7 July 2014 (PDF, 50 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case Number
SC 46/2014
Case name
Ranjit Keshvara v David Murray Blanchett & Grant Edward Burns as liquidators of APG Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 1/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 19(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that it was not necessary for a Court to hear evidence as to the particular circumstances giving rise to the supply of information used for the composition of business records before a Court can rule on admissibility of hearsay statements contained in those business records. [2012] NZCA 553 CA 665/2011
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
21 March 2013.
Case name
BFSL 32007 Limited and others v Peter David Steigrad
Case number
SC 19/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance.[2012] NZCA 604 CA 674/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 156 (PDF, 74 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Stuart Murray Wilson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 52/2013
Summary
Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to hold that the High Court’s determination of the Chief Executive of the Department of Correction’s application for an extended supervision order was premature – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the High Court did have a proper basis for making the extended supervision order.[2013] NZCA 144 CA 482/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 August 2013.
Page 9 of 13